R v Lancaster - [2018] ACTSC 285

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Lancaster
Citation:	[2018] ACTSC 285
Hearing Date:	17 August 2018
DecisionDate:	16 October 2018
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	See [38]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – obtaining property by deception
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 326 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 6, 7, 10 and 19
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Crystal-Lee Lancaster (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Ms S Janackovic (Crown) Mr S McLaughlin (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 142 of 2018

ELKAIM J:

On 25 May 2018, the offender pleaded guilty to 10 offences of obtaining property by deception.

Each offence is contrary to s 326 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) and carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 10 years’ and/or a fine of $150,000.

Ten men were duped by the offender. A number of them made initial contact with her through a dating website called Plenty of Fish. They were effectively hooked, used and then discarded.

The victims paid money to the offender because they thought they were performing deeds of charity to assist a person unwell and down on her luck. In reality the offender was simply deceptive. The following is a brief description of the facts behind each charge.

Charge 2018/2629 relates to Mr JL. He met the offender through the dating website. She drew him into her web by lying about her address, her occupation, that she had a son from a former Australian cricket captain, that she suffered from diabetes and had a history of liver cancer. Part of the deception of Mr JL, and others, was to use pictures of a different woman as a lure.

She requested loans from Mr JL to pay for cancer treatment, school fees and insulin. He loaned her, over 24 deposits, a total of $61,490. She repaid him $3,750.

Charge 2018/3458 relates to Mr PH. Initially through Facebook, and later through telephone conversations and text messages, the offender painted a picture of herself as being a physiotherapist, having a three-year-old son born to a former Australian cricket captain and that she was diabetic. Mr PH was a serving soldier who spent time in Afghanistan.

Before leaving Australia to serve his country the offender told him that she had been diagnosed with cancer. Both before and whilst Mr PH was deployed the defendant asked for money to help with medical bills.

To add to the subterfuge the offender created a false identity which she used to contact Mr PH through Facebook and a mobile phone. Under the false identity, the offender sought financial assistance. Part of the subterfuge included placing misleading photographs of herself on Facebook. Between January 2011 and August 2017 Mr PH made 203 deposits into the defendant’s bank account. The total amount of money he paid was $134,445.92. He believed all the money that he paid was in the nature of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Lancaster

Details

AGLC: R v Lancaster [2018] ACTSC 285
Case: [2018] ACTSC 285
Decision Date: 16 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Lancaster, was convicted by a jury of obtaining property by deception contrary to section 117(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where Lancaster appealed against the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether it failed to accord with the principles of parity and proportionality. The court was also required to consider whether the sentence imposed was within the appropriate range for the offence.

The court reviewed the relevant case law and noted that the principles of sentencing must be applied in a manner that is consistent with the overall sentencing framework and the specific circumstances of the case. The court found that while the sentence was at the higher end of the range for the offence, it was not so excessive as to be manifestly disproportionate. The court emphasised the need for sentencing to reflect the seriousness of the offence and the culpability of the offender. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The court found that the sentence imposed was within the appropriate range for the offence and was not manifestly excessive. The court also noted that the trial judge had appropriately considered the relevant principles of sentencing and had given due weight to the circumstances of the case. The court further emphasised the importance of ensuring that sentences reflect the seriousness of the offence and the culpability of the offender, while also taking into account the need for consistency and proportionality in sentencing.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [38]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.